that he will sign a bill that was just past. host: congresswoman diana degette, we will be watching the debate as well as immigration. democrat from colorado. thank you for your time. guest: appreciate it. host: the house gaveling in early for bundesliga business. er. the chair lays before the house a communication from the peaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., january 11, 2018. i hereby appoint the honorable michael k. simpson to act as speaker pro tpore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, lord of us all, we give you thanks for giving us another day. you, o lord, are the source of life and love. you hear the prayer of congress both for the good of this

nation and for the good of humanity around the world. help this congress and the president to discern your will in our day. by drawing upon the truth taken from a diversity of opinions, may a solid foundation be formed upon which a stable future may be built. may short-term gains or self-interests never prove to be an obstacle to true vision. rather, lord, grant to each member depth of perception, clear analysis, and creative response to the needs of our time. in these days give wisdom to all the members, and may all that is done be for your greater lohr and glory. amen -- greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will

be led by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher. mr. gallagher: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. . the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-min speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on monday i will honor dr. martin luther king jr.'s legacy by volunteering my time to help my community. i'll be at the state college food bank working with clients during distribution time. the state college foodback, wonderful organization, under the leadership of the executive director, is a tremendously successful organization.

last year the food bank served thousands of people and more than 700 families in the community. in addition it shared 26 tons of food to help other nonprofit organization was their food needs. as chairman of the ag committee's nutrition subcommittee, i know the vital role the state college food bank plays in the lives of so many. since it opened in 1982 it has provided nutritious food to those in need. i look forward to working alongside food bank employees and volunteers on monday because too many americans are food insecure and through local food banks these individuals can receive healthy and nutrition food for themselves and their families. no one in america should go hungry. our local food banks work every day to realize that goal. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to share a story, and continue to demand a vote on o the dream act.

fabiola and her family moved to oregon when she was 6. when daca was announced, it gave her the strength to come out of the shadows and pursue her goals. she earned a driver's license, took out a loan for a car, got a job, and started working for an associates degree. mr. schroeder: she currently works as a bilingual preschool teacher for head starter and will soon her bachelor's degree in early childhood education, sfow focused on special education from western oregon university. daca has given her the reality to make her dream of becoming a reality.eeds teacher a because leadership in congress will refuse to act on daca, she'll re-lose her status and will not be allowed to continue with her teaching reality. because leadership in congress will refuse to license. every day daca recipients lose their ability to have a job and go to school. we don't have until march 15. it's happening now. stop delaying. time to get it done. let's include a clean dream act in the next week's funding

package. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commend and encourage the thousands of great noble north carolinians participating in the 2018 march for life this weekend. we know from god's word the holy scriptures that life begins at conception. unfortunately, since the supreme court decision of roe vs. wade, more than 59 million innocent lives have been terminated through abortion. that's almost six times the population of north carolina. without question, it is our moral obligation to fight for and protect the lives of those who cannot speak for themselves, the talented and able lives of those who are no different than our own. today and every day i am honored to stand with those who so bravely fight to protect the

most vulnerable among us. with each passing day we shall continue to advance this very noble cause. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brown: mr. speaker, every day 122 dreamers lose their protections from deportation. every day 122 young people in this country still consider weather they should go tos class, whether they should show up for work, whether they should put on the uniform of our military in service to our country because every day that congress delays and does nothing means more bright, hardworking young people who know no other home than the united states are being asked to leave or risk being arrested. our inaction is creating an impending crisis for work forces, families, and communities around the country.

we must pass a permanent, bipartisan solution to enable dreamers to continue to live, work, and contribute to this country and that provides a pathway to full citizenship. we have seen time and time again that the overwhelming majority of americans on both sides of the aisle in both parties agree that we should protect our dreamers. yesterday 115 business leaders, including c.e.o.'s from amazon, facebook, general motors, and verizon asked congress to act immediately. dreamers don't have the luxury of time. hundreds of thousands of deserving young people are counting on us. we can't wait until march to make sure that our dreamers are protected and included and welcomed. mr. speaker, the time to act is now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i don't often make these one-minute speeches, but i'm concerned about where we

might be headed next week in terms of the budget. last week the house took another week-long break instead of staying here in order to talk about fulfilling our fundamental duty of passing a budget and funding the government. here we're once again for the third time in two months just 10 days away from government funding running out and once again we're scheduled to leave town. mr. speaker, congress is paid to do a job. so we shouldn't leave town until that job is done. this constant cycle of careening from one budgetary deadline to the next is irresponsible and embarrassing. only in washington is doing a basic task like keeping the lights on considered such a difficult achievement. mr. gallagher: it doesn't have to be this way. the solution is simple. no more breaks. lock us on the house flool until we reach a budget deal that does right by all the different programs. passing a budget is not just our job, it's the law. no one, including this body, is above the law.

i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to end the partisan stall a tactics, work together and do the job we were elected to do. mr. speaker, i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, since 2001 the civil liberties of the american people have been trampled on under the blank check of section 702. ms. gabbard: a prom that exists to allow our government to surveil foreigners on foreign soil, but which has also allowed our government to collect, search nd communications of everyday americans without a warrant. and with blatant disregard for our fourth search communications amendment constitutional rights. we have a very important responsibility here in congress a balance between national security, keeping the american people safe, while also protecting our actually protected freedoms. i urge my colleagues to vote for our bipartisan u.s.a. rights amendment today which maintains

necessary authorities to keep the american people safe while also simultaneously protecting our civil liberties. unfortunately, opponents of this u.s.a. rights amendment are pushing fear tactics and misinformation. don't fall for it. let us make this critical choice. vote to keep our country safe. vote to uphold our constitutional rights that so many have fought and died to protect. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i'm proud to represent the large number of dedicated auto workers who live and work in michigan's seventh congressional district. today i want to recognize one of the truly exceptional ones. tonya young, the plant manager at dundee engine plant in dundee, michigan. she's been the plant manager since 2013 and recently reached a remarkable milestone. hoe years with the company.

-- 40 years with the company. the plant employs about 700 people, and produces engines for various dodge and jeep product, including the jeep cherokee. mr. walberg: under tonya's leadership, dundee was the first u.s. facility to be awarded silver status for implementing the principle of world class manufacturing. it shows her commitment to excellence and productivity, quality, and safety. tonya calls dundee the family plant. i have had the privilege of touring the factory floor with her and was impressed by the efficiency of the plant and the friendliness of her team. thanks to people like tonya, the auto industry is thriving in michigan. tonya, congratulations on your 40-year anniversary. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

>> mr. speaker, i am here today not only to mourn the loss of a family friend and lifelong las vegas resident, but to let congress know what an amazing young woman she was. dana marshall burn steen died in december at the age of 28. following a lifelong battle with crohn's disease. she spent most of her life in and out of the hospital. even while she was undergoing countless surgeries, she never let her disease define hemplet she never stopped feeling optimistic about her future. she believed in kindness and she used her experience to comfort others who are also affected by crohn's disease. she shined in more ways than one and she will continue to shine in the memory of each and every life she touched and her memory will be a blessing to all of those who knew and loved her. i encourage all members here today to carry with them the courage and determination that

dana brought into this world. ms. rosen: to always think of this life with positivity and never stop believing in doing good by others. thank you. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, as a judge in texas i saw it all. mr. poe: rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping, child abuse, and now in congress we're learning about the horrors of human trafficking, sex slavery. many browned breaking laws have been passed to crack down an traffickers and buyers. like all criminal enterprises, traffickers constantly stay ahead of the law. fortunately for victims, there is an army of individuals, n.g.o.'s, religious, and other groups fighting on behalf of victims. the people serving in these organizations are new friends, new life, rights for girls,

shared hope, coalition against trafficking, and demand abolition. just to name a few. they have all dedicated their lives to serve and save victims of trafficking on the frontlines. on this national human trafficking awareness day, i want to thank all those warriors, the victims' posse, battling the injustice of human slavery. we will not give up this fight until the scourge has been eradicated. that's just the way it is. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to interject into the cord the name of another 100 groups that fight on behalf of victims. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today i rise to commemorate korean american day which celebrates the arrival of the first 102 korean immigrants to the united states on january 13, 1903.

the first korean immigrants came in pursuit of the american dream. and initially served as farm workers, wage laborers, and section hands. through resilience, efforts, and sacrifice they established the foundation for their children and future generations. today nearly two million korean americans have honored their ancestor's lega sane achieved the american dream by transforming all aspects of american life. joined latino who and korean culture, to create new quizeens that have won the stomachs of all american. to the first korean american elected to congress. others. ountless i'm honored to represent the largest korean population in the country and reintroduce dues this resolution on the 150th anniversary on the first korean imgrant rifles. i call upon my colleagues to join me in acknowledging the

korean americans who help strength-and-shape our country. thank you. i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from utah seek recognition? >> pursuant to house resolution s. 139. e to call up

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: s. 139, to inform decisions about pretile release or detention and their conditions, to solve and prevent violent crimes and other crimes, to exonerate the innocent, to prevent d.n.a. analysis backlogs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 682, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the rules committee print 115-53 shall be considered as adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the permanent select committee on intelligence and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. after one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in

house report 115-504, if offered by the member designated in the report which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart, and the gentleman from california, mr. schiff, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, s. 139. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 139. on january 19, the fisa amendments acts of 2008 will expire. this vital legislation includes section 702 which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to

obtain foreign intelligence information. section 702 is one of the most if not the most critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas. now, some claim 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. this assertion is simply false. 702 is a targeted program with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. given the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection. section 702 targets spies, terrorists, weapons proliferators and other foreign adversaries who threaten the united states and locating them is crucial to protecting our troops and our homeland. was example, haji imman

located via section 702 and later removed from the battlefield. while the vast majority of examples remain classified, this is just one instance that demonstrates the necessity of this authority. subject to multiple layers of oversight by all three branches of government, section 702 is one of the government's most vigorously overseen foreign intelligence collection authorities. to date, while compliance incidents occur and are dealt with appropriately, there has never been a known intentional abuse of this authority. nevertheless, the program should be subject to regular adjustments as necessary to ensure the effectiveness of privacy protections. therefore, after careful consideration the best way to strengthen privacy protections without hindering the program's effectiveness, the committee supports s. 139, a bipartisan bill that includes provisions and addresses concerns raised by the house judiciary committee and the senate. the bill's reforms include

requiring specific section 702 quarry procedures, separate minimumization procedures which must be reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court every year. limiting the instance in which the government can use section 702 information to prosecute u.s. people, requiring the inspector general of the department of justice to conduct a review of the f.b.i.'s interpretation and implementation of f.b.i. ection 702 query procedures. temporarily codifying the end of the n.s.a. section 702 upstream abouts collection. until the government develops new procedures and briefs the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees. and finally, improving transparency by mandating the publication of section 702 minimumization procedures and acquiring additional reporting to congress on how the intelligence community is using other fisa authorities. during discussion over the past

several months, both the house and senate have made several concessions to achieve this compromised language in order to re-authorize this critical national security authority. accordingly, s. 139 now includes a probable cause base order requirement for the f.b.i. to access the content and section -- of section 702 communication during f.b.i. criminal investigations on americans unrelated to national security. this order requirement does not reflect the committee's belief or intent that the law access to lawfully required information constitutes a separate search under the fourth amendment. the fourth amendment, as interpreted by numerous federal courts, does not require the f.b.i. to obtain a separate order from the fisc to review lawfully required 702 information. though not required by the constitution, this compromise is meant to provide additional protections for u.s. person's information that is incidentally collected under

section 702. along with the restrictions on the use of section 702, information on criminal prosecutions, this should provide further assurances to the american public this vital national security tool is used strictly to discover and mitigate foreign threats to the united states and the handling u.s. f any incidental person's information is carefully controlled and monitored. mr. speaker, america faces an array of threats, more complicated than anything we have endured in the past. speaking as -- for the chairman of the house intelligence committee, i cannot emphasize enough that now is not the time to draw back on key national security authorities. i am dismayed by the amount of disinformation being propagated by those who oppose section 702 for purely ideological reasons. when congress must re-authorize this program again in 2023, we hope those who debate these

issues, both inside and outside this chamber, do so with intellectual honesty and integrity. the u.s. rights act, which has been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute is an attempt to kill this compromise. in its place, the amendment would begin resurrecting the information sharing laws between national security and law enforcement that the 9/11 commission identified as a major factor in the failure to identify and thwart the 9/11 plot. if individuals in this body cannot learn from history, they are doomed to repeat it. . there is no support for this bill in the committee of jurisdiction whose members understand this amendment would render section 702 incomparable. therefore, in order to keep the u.s. interest and troops abroad safe from harm, we must ensure that our intelligence community has the tools it needs to provide intelligence to our soldiers abroad. section 702 is critical in that

regard. and s, 139 provides the intelligence community with the authorities needed to protect the homeland while implementing key privacy enhancements. i thank the speaker. i urge passage of s 139. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> as the ranking member and former member of the judiciary committee, i have long advocated for surveillance authorities to balance the imperatives of national security and counterterrorism with the privacy rights and civil liberties of americans. mr. schiff: today the fisa amendment's re-authorization act seeks to re-authorize the program while making changes to privacy interests. none the less, mr. chairman, as i indicated before we took up the bill, in light of the significant concerns that have been raised by members of our caucus and in light of the

irresponsible and inherently contradictory messages coming out of the white house today, i would recommend that we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address the privacy questions that have been raised. as well as to get a clear statement from the administration about their position on the bill. i do this reluctantly. section 702 i think is among the most important of all of our surveillance programs. nonetheless, i think that the issues that have been raised will need more time to be resolved. and i think we need to get a clear statement from the administration of whether they are in support of this legislation or they are not. this morning, as my colleagues are aware, the president issued a statement via twitter suggesting that this authority was used illegally by the obama administration to surveil him. of course that is blatantly untrue, but nonetheless casts an

over the debate today. in light of these circumstances, i think the better course would be for us to defer consideration . give us more time to address the issues that have been raised by the privacy community, within my own caucus, but also within the administration about its inaccurate conflicting and confusing statements on the morning of debate. so with that i reluctantly urge my colleagues to postpone consideration so that we can take up this bill when it is more ripe for consideration. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: i'd like to turn my

time over to chairman conaway from texas. the speaker pro tempore: is gentleman yielding the gentleman from texas to control the time? mr. stewart: yes. five minutes, thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from utah. while i'm not unappreciative of my colleague from california's comments, do i think we're at a place where we do need to move forward f we succumb to the emotions of what's going on around us and don't stick to the facts, stick to the -- what we're trying to get done, we do that to our detriment. i have great respect for my colleagues and his opinions. i believe that plays into the emotions what's going on rather than the facts of what's going on f we can just continue to push forward. going on if t -- we can just continue to push forward. let me say it preserves the operational flexibility of section 702 while instituting key reforms to further protect u.s. personal privacy. one of the major issues discussed over the past year has een the n.s.a.'s communication collection. a tortured title, but nevertheless we'll stick with the phrase abouts communication. abouts communications collection

takes place at n.s.a.'s up stream collection and due to how the internet communications work allows n.s.a. to collect the communication that is may reference a section 702 target email address. despite what some of my colleagues may push in their propaganda, abouts collection does not collect names of targets just selectors. some of my colleagues also suggest that abouts communication is inherently in violation of the fourth amendment to the u.s. constitution. while the fisa court has raised concerns about abouts communications, collections in the past, n.s.a. has been able to conduct such collection with the approval of the fisa court. this type of collection is at issue today because it was the subject to a compliance incident in 2016. n.s.a. self-reported a problem to the fisa court and decided to cease abouts communication collection until a fix could be implemented and demonstrated to the court. i would like to note that this type of self-reporting of compliance incidences is expected of the intelligence

community elmeant and proves oversight -- elements and proves oversight mechanisms are in place and works. would seek to permanently end abouts communication collection. this is shortsighted and a dangerous proposition that will limit the n.s.a.'s ability to identify threat networks in the future. rather than ending would seek ty end abouts communication collection. abouts communication collection, s. 139 strikes i believe that right balance. if n.s.a. wants to re-establish abouts collection, n.s.a. would first need to go back to court, convince the judge it was satisfied the court's concerns. after achieving judicial approval that n.s.a. has made the necessary technical changes, n.s.a. would then brief congressional intelligence and judicial committees how they plan to reinstitute this type of collection. barring correctional action, n.s.a. can start abouts communication collection 30 days after those briefings. some of our opponents to section s. 139 claim 30 days is not

enough. to the folks who claim that 30 days is not enough, there is nothing stopping congress from acting after that 30-day window. however, n.s.a. should not be penalized and america's security should not be compromised and prevented while obtaining valuable foreign intelligence information that the fisa court has deemed consistent with the fourth amendment just because congress can't pass legislation in 30 days. this compromise of the bill that's on the floor today i believe is the right answer. i hope my colleagues will support s. 139. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam secretary. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has pass s. 875 an act to require the comptroller general of the united states to conduct a study and submit a report on filing requirement under the programs service fund

in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i'd like to make mr. schiff aware we have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. programs in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. schiff: mr. speaker, once again i would reluctantly urge that we withdraw consideration bill on o the floor today. i certainly -- bill on the floor today. i certainly have been working as hard as anyone to try to agree to a compromise that would move forward this very important surveillance authority, but would strike the right balance between our security interests and our privacy interests. but i do think we need more time to work on this bill. i think that was only underscored this morning with the contradictory statements coming out of the administration

. an issue of this magnitude and seriousness deserves serious consideration. i think we need more time to discuss this with our members. and would urge my colleagues not to bring this to a vote today. to give us more time to work on it. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from utah. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close. some my colleagues believe congress should go above and beyond the fourth amendment and institute additional safeguards how the government handles any u.s. personal information that may be incidentally collected under section 702. while the varying committees may have different ideas how to strike the right balance between additional privacy measures and national security, the art of the compromise brings us to the current junction. under s. 139 if the bill conducts a u.s. person query into its database during a criminal investigation not

related to national security, and conducts a section 702 communication, the f.b.i. must obtain an order from the fisa court prior to assessing the content of the communication. the committee does not believe that such an order is necessary under the fourth amendment, but it is adding more protections as a matter of policy to address unfounded concerns by opponents of section 702 that the authority's being used to investigate u.s. people. proponents of the u.s. rights act amendment will say that sks 139 does not go -- s. 139 does not go far enough and craft add great compromise that allows the intelligence community to do its job. unfortunately, they are selling a poison pill that is extraordinarily harmful to our national security. per the office of the director of national intelligence under u.s. rights act amendment, the f.b.i. would not be able to look at lawfully collected data related to suspicious activities similar to that of the 9/11 hydrogeners. -- hijackers.

this is unethical to the 9/11 commission report and anyone who thinks about voting for the u.s. rights act amendment should pick up a copy and skim it prior to voting. unlike the u.s. rights act amendment, s. 139 is able to balance national security and privacy while adhering to the recommendations of the 9/11 commission reporting. i echo the white house statement last night strongly opposing the u.s. rights act amendment and i urge all my colleagues in the house to support s. 139. i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. it is now time for the judiciary committee.

the the gentleman -- gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for 10 minutes to control 10 minutes. and the gentleman from new york is recognized to control 10 minutes. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i recognize myself for a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 139.

the fisa amendments re-authorization act. as a former united states attorney, i know firsthand the enormous value that programs like section 702 provide in protecting our country. the threats have been thwarted through our intelligence and loirment communities having tools like section 702. chairman goodlatte, along with members of the judiciary committee, worked diligently on legislation to implement meaningful reforms while ensuring the law enforcement and against committees still had the necessary tools available. this bill includes many other reforms from the u.s.a. liberty act, enhances section 702 protections and maintains law enforcement's abilities. i would ask all members to join me in voting yes on this legislation. to implement real remorms while ensuring that we still provide the tools necessary to keep

american citizens safe. and in conclusion, as a u.s. attorney, i have used this, my office used this section. we followed the law to the letter. there are no complaints. and i want the american people to realize something. mr. marino: we in law enforcement, law enforcement throughout the u.s., we have to be right and on spot every second of every day. a only takes a terrorist moment to get lucky and set off a bomb to kill americans. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i rise in strong opposition to the fisa amendments and re-authorization act of 2017. which re-authorizes section 702 fisa for six years without

enacting adequate protection force our privacy. supporters of this measure want to convince us a new incredibly narrow warrant provision actually constitutes reform. it does not. our right to privacy does not begin when the department of justice fisa for six years with criminal case against us. nor has a fully does it begin w prosecutors interyou are our emails and text messages into evidence against us in court. the constitution guarantees far more than this. our right to privacy protects us when the government first makes its decision to search our private communications for information it might find useful. s. 139 falls well short of this basic guarantee. we therefore cannot, we must not support this bill. make no mistake, s. 139 is not a compromise. the judiciary committee, the technology companies, civil society, and other critical stakeholders were shut out of this conversation long ago. s. 139 does not include a meaningful warrant requirement. the rule in this bill does not apply to most searches of the

section 702 database. it does not apply to a query for any information that, quote, could mitigate a threat, unquote, an exception that threatens to swallow the entire rule. as a result, s. 139 allows the f.b.i. unfettered access to this information for purely domestic, nonterrorism cases without a warrant. . and what does it mean in the era of jeff sessions and donald trump? it means nothing for them troling the database for evidence that you use marijuana or fail to pay your taxes or may be in the country unlawfully or possess a firearm that you should not have. none of these cases have anything to do with the purpose of section 702, and all of them should require a warrant based on individualized suspicion and probable cause. i agree with chairman goodlatte that section 702 should be re-authorized. i understand its importance to

the intelligence agencies but none of us should support this bill which pretends it reforms while codifying some of the worst practices of the intelligence community in domestic crimes. when we came to congress each of us took an oath to protect the constitution of the united states. i ask that each of our colleagues honor that oath today and we work together to defeat this bill and bring the right set of reforms to the floor without delay. i thank the speaker and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. marino: i now recognize my good friend, the gentleman from texas, judge poe, for -- if he goes over a little bit that's ok. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is . cognized for a minute plus mr. poe: i am a former prosecutor, former judge. i despies terrorists. we ought to go after them and get them. 702 was written to go after

terrorists, but it's being used to go after americans. normally when -- when i was a judge, i'd sign a warrant before they could -- the government could go into your house, they had to have a warrant to go into the house and to seize something based on probable cause. under fisa, as it's used against americans -- forget the terrorists. used against americans, government has already seized your house of communications, all of it, and they look around and sometimes, sometimes they go back to a secret judge in a secret court and get a secret warrant, fisa judge, and they come in and seize something and prosecute based on irrelevant about terrorism. that's why this bill violates the fourth amendment. get a warrant before you go into the house of communications and effects of papers -- and papers of americans or stay out of that house. these documents have been seized, communications have been seized by government. they are kept forever.

keep government out without a warrant. you stay out because government, as we learned from the british, cannot be trusted. get a warrant, stay out of the house of communications. vote against this bill. let's redraft it and protect americans and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i now am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, like the ranking member, i oppose the bill. it does not meet the standards for adhering the constitution. it's a confusing debate because what are we talking about? we are all against terrorism and we've authorized the collection of data of terrorists communicating with each other. 702, if they communicate with somebody here, we can collect that too. but because of the architecture

of the internet, we are collecting vast amounts -- we can't impinto the numbers here in open session -- vast amounts of data. it's not metadata. it's content. it's the content of your phone calls, content of your emails, content of your text messages, video messages, and under 702 you can search that for americans, for crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism. we should change that. as judge poe has said, you need a warrant to go after americans for a nonterrorism crime. you know, there's a reason why a left-right coalition, the naacp and freedom works, color of change and gun owners of america have come together on this same point of view. we should stand up for the privacy rights of americans and

reject this bill and have a warrant requirement for searching for the information of americans that is in this vast database. and just one further point. the very weak predicate criminal information trigger for a warrant which is at the end of the investigation would apply only to the f.b.i. so if you are the a.t.f., you would never have to get a warrant. if you were the d.e.a., you would never have to get a warrant. this bill is inadequate, ought to be defeated, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia seek to control the time of the gentleman from pennsylvania? mr. goodlatte: i ask unanimous consent to do so. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: as you all know, the judiciary committee worked diligently for a year on legislation that does two things. one, protect americans' civil liberties by requiring a court order to access section 702

data during domestic criminal investigations, and, two, re-authorize the 702 program which is our nation's most indispensible national security tool. we achieved this by passing the u.s.a. liberty act in the house judiciary committee last year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote which is no easy task. however, we were able to responsely balance civil liberties with national -- responsibly balance civil liberties with national security. it is not perfect and the process getting here was not ideal, but the bill requires for the first time a warrant to access 702 collected communications on u.s. persons in criminal investigations. moreover, in routine criminal cases, when the f.b.i. accesses u.s. person's communications that were incidentally collected without first obtaining a warrant, the f.b.i. will not be permitted to use those communications in a criminal prosecution. this will prevent a national security tool from advancing run-of-the-mill criminal prosecutions.

these are meaningful reforms. the bill that was presented to us before christmas with its optional warrant construct was not real reform. the bill we are debating today, however, contains meaningful reforms. i would have preferred to include additional reforms but i cannot stress to my colleagues enough that our choice cannot be between a perfect reform bill and expiration of this program. the 702 program is far too important for that. with this bill we can have meaningful reform and re-authorization. in its current form, this bill will pass the senate. i also want to caution everyone that we cannot go too far in seeking to alter this program. there is an amendment that will be offered sponsored by mr. amash and ms. lofgren that would prevent the f.b.i. from ever querying its 702 database using a u.s. person term. imagine the f.b.i. getting a tip from a flinet instructor by expressing great interest in

learning how to take off and fly a plane but has no interest in learning how to land the plane. this could be innocent behavior but we want law enforcement to at least be able to perform a search to see if they already have in their possession any communications between the student and a foreign actor involved in organizing terrorist plots. the judiciary committee passed a bill would have allowed a search and allowed law enforcement to view the metadata without a warrant while requiring a warrant to review the content of the communications. the amash-lofgren amendment, which was rejected in the judiciary committee, goes too far and would prevent such a search from even being done. it would thus kill this critical program by preventing the f.b.i. from even looking at its own databases without a warrant. rendering it ineffective in preventing terrorist attacks and stifling its ability to gather necessary intelligence. it must not be adopted. i will vote to support this bill. i will oppose the amash-lofgren

amendment, and i urge my colleagues to join me vote for reform and re-authorization. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, many of us are opposing this bill and supporting the amendment because it is very different from the judiciary committee bill that we reported which was a good bill. i now yield -- i now yield one minute to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this bill. supporters of this bill have called it reform. this is not reform. it's a massive expansion of the government's ability to deprive the lives of innocent people. if you need proof, look at the bill's section 702 which is supposed to offer spying on foreign adversaries but has embolden some law enforcement to collect and read private communications of american citizens without a warrant. instead of curbing these practices, s. 139 would codify

and expand some of the most abusive surveillance practices in recent years including about collection and back door searches. there is no one more important responsibility that we have than keeping the american people safe, but we have to do it in a way that's consistent with our values and our constitution. this bill undermines our values of privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. i urge my colleagues to oppose s. 139 and to support the amash-lofgren amendment which allows intelligence agencies to do their jobs without undermining our values as americans. we can do both things, mr. speaker. keep the american people safe and honor and respect our constitution which protects the privacy of all american citizens. i urge defeat of this bill and support the amendment. with that i thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. chabot, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. chabot: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership in ensuring

that a number of important reforms to section 702 of the foreign intelligence act were included in this legislation. i rise in support of this modified version of s. 139. while this does not go as far as -- towards reform as the u.s.a. liberty act did, which was passed out of the judiciary committee in november, the reforms that are included help to provide a more adequate balance between protecting our civil liberties and providing the intelligence community and important national -- an important national tool for another six years before its expiration this friday. fisa section 702 is a critical tool used by the intelligence community to protect american citizens from foreign threats and has been successfully used numerous times to prevent terrorist plots. since we last re-authorized this, much has changed, not only in who our foreign threats are but also in the methods that they use against this. the bottom line is we need to

protect the safety of the american people. we need to make sure constitutional protections are in place, and this is a proper balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me repeat the refrain of those of us who are members of the judiciary committee who have gone through this process since 9/11. and that is that we support the integrity and the importance of 702 as a national security tool and we want it re-authorized but we want it right. our job and our task is also the protectors of the fourth amendment. and that is the protection of the american people against unreasonable search and seizure. no matter how much my friends on the other side of the aisle argue, we know that the f.b.i. can have the tools that it needs, but in the instance of

this underlying bill, similar to the bill that was passed in 2007 by the bush administration which the judiciary committee came back and amended it and made it a bill that provides the tools that was needed by those who are on the front lines in the united states military and the f.b.i. but ultimately it was changed to deny those rights. in this instance, the warrant that my friends are talking about is revised onlyly to fully predicated -- only to fully predicated cases, not to searching of documents that has information about americans. i ask my colleagues to postpone this. let us work together on behalf of the american people and who are we if we cannot uphold the constitution? it is not protected in this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, a member of the judiciary committee and chairman of the crime subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. . sensenbrenner: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this

bill and i will speak later on some of the other parts. iant to talk about the about stuff that is re-authorized in this bill after the n.s.a. itself stopped doing it earlier last year. what about collectio means is that, for example, if you have two jihadists that e in pakistan and are communicating with each other, that they didn't like something th mr. nadler said against jihadists, the f.b.i. can pick up the name nadler and go into all of his emails, all of his texts, all of the informatio thathey have on him and be ableo see what mr. nadler is -- had said about jihadists and much, much more and that's why this bill opens the door to something that the n.s.a. has csed itself. .

we have heard reports that congress has had a chance to review it. th give us 30 days to do t we can't get anything done 30 days. vote no on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york i recognized. mr. nadler: i now yield5 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. lou. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. speaker. having served oactive duty in the united states military when it comes to foreign terrorists on foreign soil, we nd to track them down and bill them. that's why i support the fisa act as applied to foreigners. but unfortunately this act has now been used to apply to americans. and if you're going to do that, you need to follow the constitution. you need to put in a warrant requirement. fortunately the new fisa bill does not do that. that's why i support the u.s.a. rights amendment. at the end of the day this is not about terrorists or terrorism.

it's about can you use information against americans in a domestic court. that's what this issue is about. don't let the intelligence agency scare you. vote no on the nunes bill, yes on the u.s.a. rights amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman information against mericans in a domestic mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes. the gentleman from yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. new york has 2-s 1/4 minutes. mr. goodlatte: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. is entleman from new york recognized. mr. is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. our times are this, the president the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is abusing his authority, he's stacking the courts with incompetent and ideological judges. he is usurping the powers of the justice department, the f.b.i. he's turning them into political

animals. and at the time that he's doing this, we're considering this legislation which leaves the door wide open for the abuse of fourth amendment rights of americans. this is a bad bill for a particularly bad time. i'm asking my colleagues to vote no. we can do better than this. i'm asking my colleagues to vote in favor of the u.s.a. rights amendment. if that amendment is not passed, then i ask my members to vote no on this overall bill. recant afford to let this happen. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. mr. goodlatte a: i yield myself one minute to say in response to those who advocate for the amash-lofgren amendment. that this amendment will very, very seriously damage our national security because 702, a program for which there is no evidence of abuse, used to

gather information about nonunited states citizens outside the united states in a targeted fashion, they have to go to the court and get approval for the selectors to gather information on a quarterly basis. they gather information, incidental to that sometimes there is information about united states citizens. guess what? the information does not come with little labors attached saying this is a united states citizen communicating here or the communication involves somebody in the united states. i will not yield. and therefore it is absolutely vitally important that we not impair the most important intelligence -- electronic intelligence gathering mechanism that the united states has to keep us safe and oppose the amash amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you. i now yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from washington, ms.

jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. miss -- ms. jayapal: i rise in strong opposition to this bill that does nothing to stop the inconstitutional collection of americans international communications without first obtaining a warrant and codifies the practice of indiscriminately sweeping up massive amounts of communications. what makes us different from those who would harm us is our commitment to our constitutional values. we're innocent until proven guilty. our government must object tape a warrant and show probable cause there is a legitimate reason to listen in on our conversations. this bill will further expose people to warrantless prosecutions or detention and deportation in case that is have absolutely no connection whatsoever to national security. i hope we reject this bill unless we approve the lofgren-amash amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i have only one speaker remaining. i therefore reserve. stoip the gentleman resves. the gentleman from new york is

recognized. mr. nadler: mr. saker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi, california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, very much, mr. speaker. how proud i am of the house of representatives that we have come together on the floor of the house and in our various caucuses and conferences to discuss the important challenge that we all face. the balance that we have to protect the american people, that's the oath we take, to protect and defend, and as we defend the constitution, defend the privacy, and the civil liberties of the american people. it'sdy. many years ago -- it's difficult. many years ago, over 20, i went on to the intelligence committee for the purpose of protecting civil liberties and privacy. also to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. two really importantverarching

issues. so i come to the oor today as one who has worked on this issue for a verlong time. and i want to thank our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do. we're so proud of what they do. in those days, when i went thest 25 years ago first on committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence the committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would the committee, it was about force protection. to try to have enough intelligence to avoid conflict, but if we were to engage that we would have -- the intelligence to protect our forces. it was about force protection. in the 90's it became more about fighting terrorism and other overarching issues as well. but we live in a dangerous world. and force protection on the ground, in theater, is still an essential part of what the intelligen community does. again, i thank the men and won in the intelligence community for their patriotism and courage. the issue that relates to

fighting terrorism is one that sometimes has a frightening manifestation on our own soil. but as we protect and defend the american people and the constitution and their rights, e have to have that balance. benjamin franklisaid if we don't fight for secuty and freedom, we won't have either. i want to particularly thank our ranking member on the intelligence committee. he has made us all proud going across the countr honoring our constitution. talking about undermining our election system. talking about protecting the american people in ways that is consistent with our constitution. i thank you, mr. schiff. i support you today in your suort of the bill that came your committee.

is it perfect? i never voted for a perfect bill in this house. i also want to thank your commi that relate to our constitution. and the members of the judiciary committee. on intelligencyou have a very few members who are deputiz by the speaker and by the leader, each party, to go to the inteigence committee to deal with iues that rete to the balance between security and privacy. with a the respect in the world for the magnificent members of the judiciary committee, all of whom i respect, it's not right to say there is nothing in thisill that protects the privacy of the american people. in fact, when i was supporting the judiciary committee bil the outside groups were complaning. they wanted the zo lofgren endment. they didn't want that bill. they were complaining abt it. today they are saying that's what they want. issue, one ying the

of the differences along the way is when it is issue, one apprri terms of warrant. pleased that we would be offering a motion to recommit that addresses just that concern, which is what i'm hearing from folks about. pleas we would be offering a the amendmt, the motion to recommit, addresses concerns of people on both sides of the aisle, certainly in our democratic caucus, which seeks to secure the highest possible otections for american civil liberties. at the same time, it ensures that the intelligence community and law enforcement can continue to keep americans safe. this amenent would go a step further from the modified bill thas on the floor under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant bere asessing americans' information. accessing americans' information. t me repeat that. the amendment will go a step further than the modified bill

under consideration to ensure law enforcement secures a warrant before accessing americans' informatn. under this amendmt the court order would be requid to access americans' data in conneio with any nonnational security crimil investigation by the f.b.i. this amendment moves pdicate, that's the operational word, removes predicate standards and expands the univee of investigations that would requi a warrant. a vote for this andmenti hope it would be bipartisan, especiay fr those objecting to the bill on the floor, is a vote for privacy protections and civil liberties. we would have preferred to have this in the original bill that's coming to the floor. couldn't get that in committ. hopefully we can get it on the floor. voting against the motion to recommit is a vote tt means fewer protections, less oversightandore ri tn erans' rights will be

violated. in the course of th i mentioned that this issue about the warrantnd the rest. i want to take the opportunity toommend the speaker for ridding -- told you about the judiciaryill. at the offset of all this th first intelligence bill, we all opposed. supported the judiciary bipartisan bill. that was there. being criticized by some outside groups for supporting that rather than e lofgren amendment. but changes were maden the intellgence bill to this effect. we asked the speaker to take out the masking provisionswhich had no placein this bill. the chairman of the intelligee committee, mr. nunes, foolishly put that in this bill. it made it a complete nonstarter. thank you, mr. speaker, for

removing it. by theay, somedy should tell the president because he thinks it's still in thebill. with that being said i personally directed to fix the rocess.ng p it isn't fixed in the bill, mr. president. that would be a secontweet of the day. confusing matters even worse. unfortunately. becau the administration, although theyrobablely would lie an extenson of the stus quo, understands we haveo do more than that. the otr provision that was in the bill was an expansion of agentsf forei governments. agents of foreign governments opened up more people who would be subjected to surveillance. weaid that doesn't fly. that haso be closed. the speaker did that. and then on the out language, hink mt people who understand that issue -- it's a compcated sue. understand that it's really not a factor in is discussion. people don't want it mentioned.

but e facts that it had to be addressed. and it is t being used. it's unconstitutional. an until it can be proven to be costitutional,e can't -- they can't be used. when it isused, they have to go to the fisa court and get permissionnd come to congress foratification of that. there a manyrotections ther so it is -- it's hard. i know. it's hard. i had a hard time when wa speaker and we passed a billo addrs the gss violations of chinee, vice president cheane-- cheney. chiee, vice president cheaney we put in many protections where there were none. then renewed and improvethem when we renewed the bill

subsequently in its re-authorization. we putn so this isn't about the other side of thaisle you don't care about pracy if you support this bill. it isn't abouthat. it's about where you strikehe balance. when y wgh the equities. and we have to come down in favor of honoring the constitution and our civil liberties, but we cannot do that completely at the expense. . i believe that mr. nadler understands that full well and i commend him for that ep understanding of the vital natiol security issues and the invaluable worthat your comttee has done to stre a balance between securitand privacynd has made a difference. but the choice we have today to pass something -- defea this bill. ok. do that if you want to do th won't go dment that

anyplace. you cano that. and we will be left withn extension of the status quoof the current law. one whoarticipat in writing it iderstd its merits. i undetand chans in technology, of tactics, of the terrorists who are out there d we have to impro the bill. i don't consider it a reform it's notb that vast. it's some improvements in how , keep collect, protect the american people safe as well as protect their sifrl liberties. -- civil liberties. since this legislation was designed to address concerns related to the use of information collected under fisa, section 702, an important foreign intelligence collection authority, we have to keep that emphasis on an important

foreign intelligence authority. so my colleagues, to that end, this modification requires a court order based on probable cause for f.b.i. criminal investigators to view americans' communications in the database and mandates an inspector general study of 702 data. so let's keep the vigilance on, even as we go forward, it contains refined language about collection, requires the executive branch to require explicit approval from the fisa court for collection. it further subjects collection to the 30-day congressional review process. i know mr. sensenbrenner said nobody can do anything in 30 days, but i think we can. and the bill strengthens the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. that's something i was instrumental in establishing when i was on the intelligence committee. i know its importance but i also know it has to be

strengthened and it has to be respected as a watchdog. so, i mean, the list goes on. requiring public reporting on the use of 702 data. just saying to the intelligence community, don't try to minimize any violations that may have occurred. we want the facts, we want the truth. and that's why i am excited it expanded whistleblower protections and briefings to the oversight committee which we have required. unlike the original house intelligence bill, which i oppose, this bill does not include language that would have likely expanded the universe of fisa targets were -- as i mentioned before -- rguments of -- somebody tell the president and -- excuse me -- gives me great pride in our caucus if could you have heard the beautiful debate between mr. nadler and mr. -- excuse me

-- mr. schiff on this subject. we are not that far apart. i think that the motion to recommit addresses most of the current concerns we have been getting from the outside groups and communities who are dedicated -- whose organize purpose is to protect the civil liberties of the american people. but, again, with great respect for everyone's opinions and whatever they have put forth, again, saluting our men and women in the intelligence community for the work that they do, we want to be sure we strengthen their hand in terms of protecting the national security of our country which is our first responsibility. keep the american people safe. and as we do so to honor our oath of office to the constitution, to honor the principles of the constitution. our founders knew full well the challenge between security and

civil liberties. they he lived in a world when they were under attack. the war of 1812 came very soon after the establishment of our country. so this is not a foreign idea to them and it question griefs to us the responsibility -- begriefs to us the responsibility to protect, defend, protect our civil liberties. respectful of debate on this issue, i myself will be voting to support my ranking member on the intelligence committee, mr. schiff, our ranking member, and members who will follow their conscious on this. from my nt you to know experience, weighing the equities, that's the path i will take. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, has all time expired on the other

side? the speaker pro tempore: it has. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, this time to close our side of debate, i am pleased to yield to mr. king of iowa, member of the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the chairman of the judiciary. i thank the minority leader for her remarks and support of 702. i rise in support of the 702 re-authorization. it's critical to our national security. you would see the color drawing out of the faces of security personnel, the entire national security community if we lost the ability and went dark on 702. we got to follow through in this congress. we got to provide the flexibility for them to use the tools that we have available to us. and we set up procedures that approve this annually under the fisa courts. we got a probable cause requirement for any criminal investigation that protects u.s. persons. we don't need to be protecting anything but u.s. persons when it comes to this. the gentlelady spoke of civil liberties and i stand in defense of those civil liberties as well and in

defense of the national security. we have an i.g. report that's written into this bill. i remind people that are concerned about this focus on these civil liberties that google and facebook and verizon and at&t, they hold more date awe than the u.s. government has. that is where the real information is. meanwhile, i will oppose the amash amendment and support the re-authorization of 702. u.s. persons deserve that protection for national security reasons. i urge adoption. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate on this bill has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 115-504 offered by mr. amash of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 682, the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash, and a member opposed, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from michigan. mr. amash: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. amash: my amendment replaces the underlying bill with the u.s.a. rights act. like the base bill, under the u.s.a. rights act, the government can still use section 702 for its purpose of surveiling foreigners overseas. and the government can continue to store, share, and access that data to investigate national security threats. the key difference is in u.s.a. rights have to do with the collection and use of innocent americans' data, not foreign intelligence. this means the amendment cannot harm section 702 programs if, as the government says, they are designed solely for foreign intelligence rather than domestic surveillance on americans. we all want the intelligence community to be able to do its job, and i have offered the u.s.a. rights amendment to give them tools to collect foreign intelligence while also protecting the fourth amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, this amendment -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment plain and simple would disable 702, our most important national security tool. if passed, any chance of reform through the underlying bill is dead on arrival in the united states senate. we cannot risk 702 collection ending. this chamber cannot be complicit in allowing terrorists to fly under the radar if this amendment kills 702. and i sincerely urge you to oppose the amash amendment and lose the -- and not lose the opportunity to successfully balance national security and civil liberties which is what the underlying bill does.

we definitely need to have a move toward more protection of our fourth amendment rights, and a warrant requirement in domestic criminal cases and a requirement that if you're doing a national security investigation and you find that the information is useful in a criminal case and it's precluded from court are two major improvements to our 702 law that protect americans' civil liberties. this bill must be passed. it is absolutely essential to our protection. it surveillance people outside the united states who are not united states citizens. the fact it collects incidental information about u.s. citizens should not be a prohibition on this effort, but if you apply this amendment, you're going to be able -- you're not going to be able to have our national intelligence officials looking at this information carefully. and they're going to have to in many instances get a warrant

when they need to act because they think it's a national security concern, a warrant will be unobtainable or will be in a circumstance where it's too late. and in both instances we cannot allow that. this bill provides balance. that bill goes too far. the amendment goes too far. i urge my colleagues to oppose it and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, it's important we pass this amendment. the government conducts 702 searches and broadly defined foreign intelligence investigations that may have no nexus to national security, and we are using this database for just criminal investigations that are domestic. when you say incidental collection, it sounds like it's not much. well, the fact it's a huge amount of data in its content.

what this amendment says is, if you are going to search for the information of an american that has been collected in that database and it's not terrorism but domestic criminal investigation, get a warrant. get a warrant. that's what the fourth amendment requires. 702 would go dark. we know there is existing fisa order goes through april. the 702 program is not going dark. we have time to do this right. we have time to make sure that the fourth amendment is adhered to in the re-authorization of 702. put the foreign back in the fisa bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is

recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, before i begin i want to emphasize how dismayed i am by the amount of disinformation being propagated by opponents of section 702. i heard some things over the last couple days and i just wonder how in the world could someone believe that. let me tell you why this amendment must be opposed. under the u.s. rights act, intelligence community would not be able to query the name of a suspected terrorist supported in the united states to see if he's in direct contact with recruiters. it would not be able to query a name in the united states who is approaching people with security clearances to see if that person is part of a foreign espionage network. we would not be able to query the name of a registered owner of a suspicious vehicle in front of the national monument to see if he's in contact with operatives oversees.

and query someone after a casualty attack in the united states to see if he has terrorist connections. or to follow on its poe -- potential to follow on if attacks are imminent, we would not be able to query a name of learns how t that to fly but not how to land. they know -- they have an opportunity to do that with their vote but they would be putting troops and american lives at risk. in that's ok with you, then go ahead and vote for the u.s. rights act amendment. but i promise, you'll regret it when someday in this dangerous world we live, we have to answer to our constituents for our votes here today. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, my amendment protects the rights of americans consistent with the constitution. i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. r. poe: mr. speaker, we're not

talking about terrorism. we're talking about the protection of america prottion of americans and their information. all of the rhetoric, the fear tactics that this will destroy our ability to go after terrorists is wrong. the u.s.a. rights act is important to protect americans. the other side talks about protecting americans. let's protect their fourth amendment right. we could protect them against terrorists if we amend this legislation with the u.s.a. rights act and protect their rights under the fourth amendment. every american's data is being seized by the justice department, the c.i.a., n.s.a. we've asked them how many times that's been queried. they will not tell us because the information is massive. and all we're saying under the u.s.a. rights act, if you want to go into that information on americans, get a warrant from a judge, not a query. can't go search it. get a warrant under the fourth amendment or stay out of that

information and still go after terrorists under 702 and under fisa. we need to have this amendment to make the bill better to protect americans overseas and at home. and that's just the way it is. i yield back, mr. speaker. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i referee:. the speaker pro tempore: the is eman from virginia recognized. mr. goodlatte: is recognized. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. schiff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schiff: i thank. rise in opposition to the amendment. i respect and share the sponsors' commitment to privacy and civil liberties, but this amendment would go vastly beyond the legislation advanced by either the intelligence or judiciary committees. it will prevent the intelligence community from accruing lawfully collected 702 information even in situations directly related to counterterrorism and national security. it would make section 702 a far less effective tool at a significant cost to the national security of the united states.

the amendment would require a probable cause warrant or its equivalent before the government can query lawfully collected 702 data in an effort to find communications concerning someone who may be a u.s. person or foreign person located in the united states, even when such person is communicating with foreign terrorists or intelligence targets. probable cause will be lacking in many if not most intelligence and counterterrorism contexts. u.s.a. ituations, the rights act would prevent the government from detecting and disrupting plots against americans or identifying and preventing foreign espionage on our soil. it would also require publication u.s.a. rights act would prevent the government from of information related to 702 certifications that would disclose the sources and methods of intelligence gathering, imperiling our ability to obtain foreign intelligence information. that to me is a high risk. instead the underlying bill strikes a far better compromise. in the underlying bill, a warrant would be required in most nonnational security,

nonterrorism cases when there is an open investigation. in the absence of such a warrant, the bill provides that evidence that would be obtained would be excluded from use in court. that seems to me a very sensible balance. requiring a warrant in most nonnational security, nonterrorism cases and providing in the absence of such a warrant and open investigation that information or evidence would be barred from use in court. that addresses the graph min of the concern over this -- gravamen in the concern of this program that would be used for fishing expeditions against ordinary americans. this amendment, on the other hand, would largely cripple the program and for that reason i urge opposition to the amendment and support for the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadlemplet the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. nadler: mr. speaker, any responsible effort toe authorize section 702 must pass three tests. must include a meaningful warrant requirement, must end the about collection until congress is otherwise and must not restrict the government's ability to collect against intelligence on valid targets operating outside the unes t does not include a meaningful warrant requirement and does not end the about collection. the amash-lofgren amendment passes all three tests. it leaves the core functionality of 702 perfectly intact. it would be harder to use this authority to spy on united states citizens, but the government's ability to gather intelligence and suspected terrorists will not be affected. i urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and make meaningful change to section 70 t i thank the many sponsors of this amendment for their leadership of this important fight. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is ecognized.

mr. amash: i mr. amash: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized plcht goodlatte: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. ruppersberger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ruppersberger: i thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the amendment being offered and in support of the underlying bill and increased oversight and transparency it provides to the body, the intelligence community, and american public that it protects. i thank the ranking member and also chairman goodlatte for your allowing me to have this time. first thing, i want americans at home to know that this -- what this program is not. it is not a dragnet surveillance program. it is not a program that can ever be used to target americans. it is not an unchecked intelligence tool. in fact, it may be one of the programs y overseen we have. this bill strengthens that accountability. as former ranking member on the intelligence committee and representative of the district that is home to n.s.a., i have taken many of my colleagues in this chamber to trips to n.s.a. so they can see firsthand progr

we have. how these programs work to protect americans and also to protect our freedom and civil liberties. this is not a debate on constitutionality. the federal courts have affirmed this program's current authorization and opopration are legal and consist -- and operation are legal and consistent with the fourth amendment. this body has voted several times with bipartisan majorities to re-authorize it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. lieu. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lieu: thank you, mr. speaker. make this issue really simple for the american people. spying on foreigners without following the constitution, that is ok. spying on americans without following the constitution, that is not ok. the fourth amendment does not have an as terrific that says our intelligence agencies don't have to follow it. is not ok. it applies to all of government. that's why i support the u.s.a. rights amendment. support this bill.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. costa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. costa: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise to oppose this amendment. i think it's in the wrong direction. to support the underlying bill. the bill i think strikes a balance. americans cherish and strongly want to us protect their privacy. we agree on that. i think this bill threads the needle. the underlying bill protects our fourth amendment through the fisa process, through this improved effort. we know we live in a dangerous americans cherish and strongly want world. terrorism is a constant threat that we all clearly understand. when we take our oath of office, we swear to protect and defend our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. i believe this underlying bill does that with increased transparency. clearly it's not perfect. we never vote on any perfect

legislation. but this is an improved piece of legislation. the amendment is an overreach and wrong direction. i urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: thank you, mr. speaker. when james madison wrote the constitution and the bill of rights, one of his overriding concerns was to prevent any branch of the three in government from becoming too powerful. and that's why he put the checks and balances in the constitution so that the other branches could oversee and make sure that a branch that was trying to push the edge of the envelope would not be able to succeed in that.

the warrant amendment that's been talked about quite a bit today during the debate really is not effective. it is nothing at all. it ends up putting james madison's legacy into the trash bin of history and it does not deserve to go there. yesterday "the washington post" reported that f.b.i. officials told aids of mr. nadler that -- ides of mr. nadler, that under the proposed bill, meaning the underlying bill, they anticipate rarely if ever needing permission from the f.s.c. to review yeary results. so -- query results. so this requirement that the supporters of the bill and opponents of the amendment basically doesn't mean anything at all. because the f.b.i. told mr. nadler's aides that that was the case. now, we have a debate here today

on whether to put the f. back into the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the f. means foreign. and that is why the amendment should be adopted or if it fails then the underlying bill should be defeated. this is a time to stand up for the oath of office that every one of us took a year ago to protect and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. the only way we can do that today is by supporting amash and defeating the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: may i inquire how much time each side has remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 3-s 3/4 minutes. -- 3-s 3/4 minutes. -s 3/4 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. wenstrup. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wenstrup: thank you, mr. speaker. i oppose the amount and support the underlying bill. i served a year in iraq. every day we got foreign intelligence information to us. why? because it helped us prepare t helped us plan. it helped us deter. it helped us save american lives. not only the lives of our troops in theater, but the lives of people at home. i'm all in favor of protecting american citizens and their privacy. do not get me wrong. i hope in the information that we collected in theater that there were no americans involved. guess what this amendment will do, it will virtually guarantee terrorist also make sure they have an american complicit or otherwise involved with every one of their communications email or phone call. why? because that protects them. that will protect terrorists. that's what this amendment would

do. that is why i oppose the amendment and stand in favor of the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, my amendment protects the right of americans consistent with the constitution. at this time i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davidson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the amash amendment and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. as a former army ranger i know the importance of section 702 and defeating the enemies of our country. the foreign enemies of our country are not subject to the protections of our constitution. american citizens, however, are. the supporters of the underlying bill would have you believe the only way to secure america is by ignoring the fourth amendment. i strongly disagree. it is for american citizens, it is your data that is that subject here. the fourth amendment does not change when communications shift from postal service, also in the

hands of the government, to a database. it should be protected by the fourth amendment. i strongly urge support of the amash amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: i is recognized. mr. speaker, congress has sometimes made the difficult job the intelligence ommunity harder by not providing adequate controls and oversight. we have created a vast department of homeland security, vast securing, sprawling intelligence providing adequate controls and oversight. we have created a network, resun the collection of data my friend, mr. poe, talked about. yes, warrants can sometimes be inconvenient but we have judged it as a small price to pay to protect americans from

government overreach. i strongly support this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, for 45 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. perry: thank you, mr. speaker. service members in the combat zone depend on 702 to keep them safe. 702 must continue to gather information on foreign terrorists to keep us and service members safe. however, americans in uniform serve to preserve an ideal that the constitution protects the rights of americans. the bill unamended enshrines in law the abuse of the fourment amendment rights of american citizens and it just cannot happen. this is not only about criminal prosecution, but about political persecution. mr. speaker, that abuse and the associated persecution is

unfolding on the front pages and on tv right before us today. don't lower the bar any further. vote to preserve the rights of american citizens. vote for this amendment. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time each side has remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan has 1 and 3/4 minutes remaining. mr. amash: mr. speaker, at this time i yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia, mr. garrett. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, we have covered many things in the past year to include tax policy, health care, helping eviscerate isis. i argue this is the most important moment in the time i have been in this building. not only is the fourth amendment is at stake, so, too, our due process under the fourth and 14th. we must stand strong for individual liberty and privacy. if we do not put the f back in

fisa it becomes isa and all eyes are on you. mr. amash: i yield 20 seconds to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, this body could not be afraid of the constitution. it has been our guiding moral force for this nation, for all our beginnings and our nows. this amendment is truly an amendment that will protect and provide for the f.b.i. to do its work and to protect our men and women around the world who are wearing the uniform unselfishly. but let me be very clear. all this amendment does, frankly, is to provide a road map for the f.b.i. to utilize when it is surveying and it is using the private data of americans. and all the amendment does is to ask the f.b.i. and the attorney general where there's probable cause that such communications provides evidence of a crime and as well if there is a foreign power or

foreign agent to be able to utilize a warrant. and that is the protection of the fourth amendment. uphold the constitution. vote for this the amash-lofgren amendment, and let's move forward on this legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to whether the gentleman has additional speakers? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia has a minute and a half. the gentleman from michigan has ne minute. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, let me pose a hypothetical about the amash amendment. in the criminal world, if an f.b.i. agent is told through a tip that someone has just purchased unusual amounts of fertilizer that could be used to make a bomb, the amash amendment would prevent that f.b.i. agent from looking at

the f.b.i.'s databases to determine if the suspicious individual's email address or other identifier -- not the content of the email -- just the email address or identifier is located in the 702 database. what would the american people say if we hampered law enforcement? what if we had another murrah building blowup and the f.b.i. couldn't look at an email address? i urge you to vote against this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. amash: mr. speaker, may i inquire as to how much time each side has remaining? the speaker pro tempore: seach side has one -- each side has one minute remaining. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. amash: the underlying bill and u.s.a. rights amendment has a stark choice it allows the government to warrantlessly attack an astounding volume of americans' communications, makes no material reforms to the collection and use of that

data against americans, and explicitly allows even more surveillance than the law currently permits. in contrast, u.s.a. rights allows the government to conduct broad foreign surveillance and share intelligence throughout the relevant agencies. but it also adds protections to prevent the erosion of americans' fourth amendment rights. these are two very different options, mr. chairman. but for all of us who care about civil liberties, who believe the united states can protect itself without retiring the fourth amendment, and if you believe congress has an independent obligation to protect the constitution, the choice is clear. support the u.s.a. rights amendment. thank you, mr. speaker. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, to close debate i am pleased to yield one minute to the speaker of the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the speaker: i thank the speaker. first, i just want to say to all my colleagues, i respect

the passionate views that are on display here. i think this has been a very passionate and interesting debate. what i would like to do is try and bring a little clarity to this debate. i want to thank the minority leader for coming up and speaking against the amash amendment and in favor of the underlying bipartisan amendment. we've been working with -- we, on a bipartisan basis, have been working with the senate and the white house to get this right. to add even more privacy protections to the law even more than the status quo. to add the warrant requirement that the underlying bill has. let me try and clear up some of the confusion. there's been wide reporting and discussion here in the house about parts of the fisa statute that effects citizens. it's a big law, big statute, lots of pieces. title 1 of the fisa law is what you see in the news that applies to u.s. citizens. that's not what we're talking about here.

this is title 7. section 702. this is about foreign terrorists on foreign soil. that's what this is about. so let's clear up some of the confusion here. let me give you two examples. two examples of what this program has done to keep our people safe. two declassified damplescompaverples. in march of 2016 gave us the intelligence we needed to kill isis' finance minister. because of the intelligence collected under this program, a foreign terrorist on a foreign soil, number two man at isis who was in line to become the next lired. -- leader. this program helped us get the information to stop him. i came here before 9/11. i remember hearing upon hearing in the 9/11 commission about the old firewall. we were seeing what was going

on overseas, terrorists like osama bin laden in afghanistan were doing all these things and we couldn't pass that information on to our authorities here in america. we had this firewall that prevented us from connecting the dots. that was the big phrased we he used back then in the early 2000's. you pass the amash amendment, you bring that firewall right back up. you pass the amash amendment and defeat this underlying bill, we go back to those days when we are flying blind on protecting our country from terrorism. let me give you an example. this program has not only stopped many attacks, let me tell you about one. a plot in 2009 to blow up new york's subway system. this was used to understand what people were planning overseas and what they were trying to do here in america so we can connect the dots and stop that particular terrorist attack. that is why this has to be renewed. that is why among many other reasons why 702, a program designed to go after foreign

terrorists on foreign soil is so essential. if this amash amendment passes, it kills the program. if this underlying bill fails, there's one of two things that will happen. the status quo will be continued, meaning no additional privacy protections, no warranty requirement, status quo. that doesn't do anything to advance the concerns that have been voiced on the floor or even worse, we go dark. 702 goes down. we don't know what the terrorists are up to. we can't send that information to our authorities to prevent terrorist attacks. the consequences are really high. one of the most important things we are placed in charge to do is make decisions, not based on tv, not based on internet, based on facts, based on reality. and we're supposed to make those decisions to keep our country safe. this strikes the balance that

we must have between honoring and protecting privacy rights of u.s. citizens, honoring civil liberties and making sure that we have the tools we need in this day and age of 21st century terrorism to keep our people safe. that's what this does. that is why i ask everyone on a bipartisan basis to vote no on the amash amendment and vote yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. mr. amash: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute

vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed by five-minute votes on a motion to commit, if ordered, passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4578. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] exprslpribed b u.s. hou of esentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 183, the nays are 233, the amendment is not adopted. the question is on the third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: an act to implement the use of d.n.a. instruments to inform about child abuse and conditions and to prevent violent crimes, to exonerate the innocent and to prevent d.n.a. backlogs, and for other urposes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i'm opposed to the bill in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk: the gentleman moves to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. page 6, line 21, insert or after the semicolon, page 7, line five, strike semicolon, o, and -- -- o, and all that follows after page 12, strike lines 15 through 19 and redesignate the

subsequent paragraphs accordingly. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for fine mives in support of his motion. >> mr. speaker, members of the intelligence community of which few of us have an opportunity to serve lead very odd lives. mr. himes: every single day we descend into the bowels of this capitol, four floors down, we surrenders our iphone, surrender our blackberries, and go into windowless rooms, where on a daily basis we hear about some of the most grotesque threats to american safety and interests that you can imagine. threats to american lifes, threats to american interests, and threats to our very way of life. we see every day how essential,

how essential 702 authorities are. the intelligence -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. he gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will continue. mr. himes: the intelligence that we gather under this authority is critical. critical to our safety, our security, and our lives. it saves lives. this program cannot be interrupted and if it is, god forbid, we will have much to answer for. even if this motion fails, the base bill to those of you with substantial civil liberties concerns, and i count myself amongst you, the base bill makes important and meaningful civil liberties improvements over the status quo.

i deeply appreciate the efforts of many in this chamber that oppose this bill, the efforts that they have made. each and every one of us swears an oath to protect and defend the constitution. and no one should ever be criticized for working hard to make sure that that process is served. not mr. nadler, nozz ms. -- not ms. lofgren, not mr. nash, not mr. poe. i have spent much of the last several days trying to improve this bill with respect to civil liberties. i presented amendments to the rules committee which were sadly not made in order. but the fact is that these protections exist. there are strict processes and procedures in place at the u.s. as to how exactly person information can be queried and used. on top of that, the entire 702

program is reviewed by the foreign intelligence surveillance court, and subject to meaningful congressional oversight by each and every one of us. to authorize this program each year a federal judge must find it has met all statutory requirements and is consistent with the fourth amendment. mr. speaker, three district courts and the ninth circuit court of appeals has deemed this program constitutional. but, mr. speaker, no bill is perfect. and so the motion i offer would encompass all f.b.i. matters, not just predicated investigations but all f.b.i. matters not related to national security and require court orders founded on proximate cause before the f.b.i. could access u.s. person information under 702. my colleagues, this is a critical national security asset.

it is as important as our best operator, as our best technology, as our most powerful weapon. and i appreciate the effort that has been made to secure our civil liberties. this motion to recommit push this is bill slightly in that direction, building on the meaningful immaterial prufmentes to the status quo, and i urge its passage. with that, i yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i claim time in opposition, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i'll be really brief today. but i want to thank all my colleagues. there are a lot of strong opinions on both sides of the aisle on this issue and we have taken many steps that the house intelligence -- at the house intelligence committee to take members out to the agencies doing this work. we have offered time for members come down to read all the

information. at the end of the day we all take the american people's constitutional liberties seriously and i think the robust debate that's occurred in this house over the last year on this issue through many markups, through many committees, and then even today on the floor here in the house of representatives. mr. nunes: it's been a tough fight because it's a tough issue. but in closing, this really is a compromise. we worked with the house judiciary committee and i can't thank chairman goodlatte enough for all of his very, very difficult work in trying to find a compromise. at the same time, the house intelligence committee, we've worked to come to a compromise with the democrats on the other side of the aisle. so with all of that said, is one of those days, if we get this bill passed, i think we can walk out of here proud that we all stood our ground on stances we

real illinois believe in but at the end of the day the house is going to work its will in a bipartisan manner. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to commit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. himes: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 189. the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the question is now on the passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 256. the nays are 164. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from kansas, mr. he 's -- mr. evident it's, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4578 which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk: h.r. 4578, a billle to authorize certain counter terrorist networks activities at the u.s. customs and border protections, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 410, the nays are 2, 2/3 being in the

affirmative, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on homeland security and the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of the bill h.r. 4708 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4708, a bill to amend the homeland security act 2002, issue department of homeland security wide guidance as part of the department of homeland security blue campaign and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is engrossed, read a third time, and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: thank you very much. i'm so glad you remember where i was from. i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purpose of inquiferinge the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, sir. i yield to my friend the majority leader, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, on monday, no votes are expected in the house. on tuesday, the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close

of business tomorrow. in addition, the house will consider two measures from the financial services committee. first, h.r. 2954 the home mortgage disclosure adjustment act sponsored by representative emmer, this bill provides targeted regulatory relief to local banks and credit unions. second, h.r. 3326, the world bank accountability act, sponsored by representative andy barr. next week, our nation's cap tl will also welcome tens of thousands of americans to washington for the annual march for life in conjunction, the house will vote on h.r. 4712, the born alive survivors protection act, sponsored by representative marsha blackburn. this bill simply states doctors must provide medical care to any child born alive after a failed abortion. finally, mr. speaker, additional legislative items are expected, including legislation to address government funding and other

expiring priorities. i'll be sure to inform all members as soon as any additional items are added to our schedule. with that, i thank my friend and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for the information. i presume the c.r. will be a continuing resolution that is anticipated as the gentleman referenced, is that accurate? mr. mccarthy: as the gentleman knows we have been in discussion to try to get a budget agreement. hope that we can have that done this time. and if we're able to get that budget agroment, we'll need some time for the appropriators to do their work so we'd have a continuing resolution. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that. will that continuing resolution be clean from your standpoint? that is to say, it will not include other items on it? or will it, do you have any anticipation that other items might be included on that? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the

gentleman for yielding, i'm hoping he's asking this question so he'll return and start voting for those. but that has been in the past what we have done. the last two that we did. i don't see any change in where we're moving forward now. mr. hoyer: the gentleman and i had the opportunity to meet at the white house with the president earlier this week. he and i are attempting to work on seing if we can make sure that we protect our dreamers that i think we saw unanimous opinion in the white house among the 17 republicans and seven democrats or eight democrats that were there that that ought to be done. i was pleased the president said that ought to be done and ought to be done quickly. i appreciate the gentleman's efforts on that score. obviously we also need to do something with the children's health insurance program. we've talked about that before. we need to do something with respect to the supplemental.

with rico and the virgin islands as well as puerto rico and texas. , passed a supplemental here hopefully we can address that. in addition, we're going to have to establish camps because we still at this late hour, late date, do not have a figure for the appropriations committee to use in terms of what they'll mark their bills to. does the gentleman tissue you mentioned it, but does the gentleman have any degree of update or confidence that that will be done within the next few days? i yield to my friend. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the negotiations have been progressing further as they have been for the last month or so. i believe, as we both know, the need of this funding for our military.

i believe that military should not be held hoss taj for any other issues. so i believe we can get to a solution here. i'm hopeful that those are -- who have been negotiating can find common ground in the next day or two so we can move forward. mr. hoyer: i thank the leader. nobody has any intention of course to hold the military hostage. the gentleman, the military, secretary mattis and his predecessors have all believed a c.r. is damaging to the military's ability to move forward and plan. i would suggest to my friend the majority leader, mr. speaker, that it is equally damaging to the nondefense side of the budget. administrators, secretaries, cannot plan for what resources they will have a month out two months out, or until september 3 of the end of the fiscal year. so that reaching agreement is important on both sides of the

budget. in addition, mr. leader, i would respectfully hope we could pursue the policy and agreement that we made and that speaker ryan was a principal on your side of the aisle and senator murray the principal on our side of the aisle, reached agreement on parity of increase. not parity of expenditures because we spend more on defense, but parity of increase. i would hope we could pursue that and that would make, i think, a -- it would accelerate agreement on how we're going forward. but i know the gentleman is going to be working on both of those efforts. i appreciate that and look forward to working with him. unless the gentleman wants further time i yield back the alance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet on tuesday next when it shall convene at noon for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i send to the desk a concurrent resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 98, directing the secretary of the senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the bill senate 139. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the concurrent resolution? without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider

s laid on the table. the chair lays before the house communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, it has been my great honor to serve as chairman of the budget committee in the u.s. house of representatives. i am proud that we completed our work when the house passed the most conservative budget in two decades with $203 billion in cuts to mandatory spending and paved the way for tax reform. while i do wish the senate had adopted our resolution, i believe we have begun to change the culture of excessive spending in washington. with the f.y. 2018 budget and tax reform complete, i am now respectfully stepping down as chair of the house budget committee, effective thursday, january 11, 2018. last summer i announced i would run for governor of tennessee in 2018.

i have previously fore stalled that decision to devote myself to the duties of serving as budget committee chair in 2017. an opportunity that i did not foresee but one i felt honored and committed to undertake to ensure this house republican majority passed a bold, conservative, and balanced budget. i would like to thank president trump and vice president pence for their support of the house budget and leading the way on tax reform. it's been an honor working closely with both of them this year. i am grateful to the people of the sixth district for giving me the privilege of fighting on their behalf in corning, signed, sincerely, diane black. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, thank you for the privilege of serving for the past phi years on house ethics committee. while few if any members seek this assignment, the collegiality of the members have made it an experience i will treasure. when i became chairperson of the committee on oversight and

government reform, i knew i would not be able to keep all of the committee assignments to include judiciary, intelligence, and eth exs. four committee assignments, including a chairmanship, is a challenging work load, i was happy to finish out though calendar year and conclude some matters then pending before the committee. accordingly, i tender my resignation from the house ethics committee, pending your designation of a replacement. thank you again for this opportunity and thank you to my colleagues on the committee for their hard work and friendship. signed, sincerely, trey gowdy, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resignations are accepted. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: by direction of the house republican conference i send to the desk a privileged re-- resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 685, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby

-- ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is laid n the table. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent -- >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise today to thank president trump for shining a big, beautiful spotlight on rural america my district has rural counties and far too long our hard working farmers and communities have felt forgotten by past presidents. but thanks to the trump administration's new policies and renewed support that is no longer the case this week, president trump highlighted rural america when he addressed

the american farm bureau's federations national convention, making him the first president to do so since george h.r. bush in 1992. in his address, president trump pledged to work with congress to pass the farm bill on time, critical legislation that support ours farmers. i'm a proud member of the house agriculture committee and we have already been hard at work crafting this year's legislation. the president also signed an executive order expanding access to rural broadband. in today's world, broadband is ot a luxury, it's a critical necessity. my constituents need accessible broadband in their homes, schools and businesses. it is critical for development. president trump is implementing solutions to make a difference for my constituents in rural georgia as well as americans across this nation. together with the trump admgs and my colleagues in congress i will continue my hard work to ensure that rural america is

never forgotten. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise to speak against this administration's choice to end the temporary protective status designation for el salvador. because of this potentially dangerous decision, 200,000 people who have been legally living and work in the united states will be forced to go back to a country they don't know and hasn't recovered from the devastating earthquakes but is in the grips of gang violence. these families have chose to stay here. in my district, there are recipients from el salvador have been engrained and embedded and they are employees and started

families and businesses and pay taxes. if they are removed, our country would lose $100 billion over the next decade. and employers would experience hundreds of millions in turnover costs. congress should right this wrong nd pass the american promise act. so they need to continuing to contribute to our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise today to draw attention to a growing humanitarian crisis, one that is often forgotten in news around the world. venezuela is suffering through a collapse of its economy and we're still -- venezuela's

children are starving to death. the number of cases of severe mall nutrition have tripled since the year of the economic collapse and 2018 will be even worse. the government has taken pains to hide the impact that the collapse has had on its population. but the recent statistics tell the true story. from 2012 to 2015 the mortality rate of infants under four weeks old has increased ten fold. children under the age of one-year-old that have died is 30%. they dig through trash. this crisis, we cannot turn a blind eye to. and i urge my colleagues to keep this at the forefront. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise

and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i rise to set the record straight about the trump republican tax scam recently signed into law. middle income and working people in georgia would see a minimal gain and eventually they will see their taxes go up while the richest 1% of the residents of georgia will get eastern annual tax cut of $83,000. georgia millionaires could receive a cut of more than $130,000 a year. in fact, the trump republican ax cut bestows 83% of the $5.5 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest 1% who don't need it while blowing a $1.5 trillion hole in the nation debt. i'm holding a summit in my district to communicate about what this tax scam means to them and their families and what it

means for jobs and economic growth. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my disappointment in the democratic party and express my concern for the safety and security of the american people. it has become evident that democrat leades and the rest of tear party are more interested in protecting illegal immigrants and foreign nationals than protecting american citizens and passing a budget to avoid a government shutdown. as a government, we are charged with supporting the well-being and safety of all american citizens. in order to fulfill this responsibility, we must secure our borders and end chain immigration and mandate e-verify as the national practice. we don't need to promote the

practice of rewarding illegal aliens by providing jobs and safe havens. our obligation is to law-abiding american citizens. we cannot take care of the rest of the world if we are unable to take care of america and its citizens first. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: this weekend i will join the afl-cio's conference dealing with civil and human rights. at that time, we will discuss the g.o.p. tax scam that stops the labor movement in its tracks because 83 of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1%. i invite my constituents to join me from 1:00 to 3:00 to talk

about the labor movement and the g.o.p. tax scam on the american people. at the same time, i'm glad i live in a nation who come from other countries and live up to the ideals. i pay tribute to rose and joses cow bar. he came from el salvador and it is important this family not be brorne up. he needs to come back with his loving wife who works for the texas medical center. t.p.s. again is not violating or jeopardizing the american people's security. it is compassion and respect for those who come to this nation fleeing persecution. to send back haitians and people of ellsalvador and send back our deemers would be worse. let's make what this country what it is, the greatest country in the world. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> permission to address the house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this past saturday i attended the 102nd annual pennsylvania farm show. great to see so many constituents there supporting and learning about our agriculture community. largest indoor agricultural event and showcases competitive exhibits, more than half of which are animal exhibits. and more than 1,000 exhibitors and competitors were from my congressional district like natalie who were showing hereford beef cattle and there was delicious food which raises money for nonprofits that support our agricultural community. this highlights the industry that employs half a million

people in pennsylvania and contributes to $185 billion to our economy. special thanks to representative thompson, who is vice chair of the ag committee who conducted a listening session with other members of the pennsylvania dell depation as well as members of the ag committee. and ranking member colin peterson was in attendance and great session with many members of the ag community. i would like to thank farm show executive director for putting on a fantastic show. and pennsylvania ag secretary reading and u.s. department under secretary for attending and participating in the listening session as well. fabulous show and i look forward to attending next year. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize high point native heather richardson for qualifying for the 2018 winter olympics in speed skating, holding multiple world records and will be competing for her first olympic medical this year. going up just a few minutes from our local high point roller rink, helter's talents were recognized by a local coach who suggested she take in-line speed skating classes. she must wait a full year before she could compete, her compassion and did occasion for the sport did not waiver and a year later competed. she has marked crowning achievements. for many years, hours, minutes and seconds they have devoted to

training come down to fulfilled dreams and broken records. heather's dedication and perseverance demonstrate the characters found in every great athlete. i wish her the best of luck next month. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. tenney: thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to youth robotics team from my hometown. in december, they competed in the regional qualifier for the first tech challenges where they qualified for the regional championship in new york. they received the first tech challenge inspire award that the judges feel acted as a positive role model and embrace the challenge of this program.

i extend my congratulations personally. kyle, and, liam, kyle, jimmy and leon. i wish the scouts continued success as they move forward to the regional championship. it is a great honor in representing these young constituents who place emphasis on determination, ingenuity and education in achieving these many worthy goals. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: ask unanimous consent do address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. without objection. mr. carter: i recognize the winning team for the 2017 app challenge for the first district. paul gold hill, luca, joseph and ryan. over the last four months, 190 members of congress hosted the congressional app challenge in

their districts where students compete to code original apps. 4,100 students submitting apps. the winning team is from richmond hill middle school and created the app wing finder which enables individuals who enjoy viewing butterflies colors.g their wing i'm proud of these students for coding and creating this app. seeing what these students can achieve through technology gives me great hope for the future of our country. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: are there any further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2017, the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

majority leader. mr. hill: mr. speaker, i thank you for the opportunity to address the house this afternoon . beginning in 2013, i began discussing how our economic recovery was subpar in comparison to post-world war ii recovery. that's in part due to, as i argued, the wet blanket of the avalanche of new regulatory costs imposed by the previous administration. since the congress has a poor track record of regularly enacting all of our appropriations bills, funding the government and directing agency priorities, the administrative state that unelected portion of our government has expanded in authority and filled that void.

now the house turned acorner this year by passing all 12 spending bills, fully vetted through our committees prior to september 30, 2017. sadly, only the first time since 2010. further, it's been more than 21 years since congress has passed all 12 funding bills and have them signed into law before the start of a new fiscal year. . in 1984 set up a conference i'll refer to as the chevron deference. this allowed the big government washington authorities in deferring to their authority rather than the people's congress.

this has further immas cue lated the article 1 powers of the constitution. i disagree with this concept of chevron deference and before he died justice scalia regretted his defense of chevron deference and said it in fact contravened the separation of powers. this combination of the chevron denches, the lack of regular, predictable oversight and appropriations have resulted in this wet blanket of a growing leviathan of centralized federal power, negating state authorities protected under this e10th amendment and curbing freedom for our families and individuals. noted new york lawyer and author philip howard call this is the rule of nobody. in his 2014 book, hurd argues our administrative state is

wearing our people out. the process is devoid of human judgment and common sense. many of us in the congress are pushing back, insisting that the v.a. accountability act, the v.a. accountability act, a shocking idea, that that tissue that bad employees should be fired. throughout public oversight of our committees or in my own golden fleece awards that we demand accountability of the personnel of the federal government and common sense in the application of our policies. howard recalls the u.s. open golf championship back in 2011 out at bethesda, maryland, when county officials shut down a children's lemonade stand near the course because it didn't have a vendor's license, mr. speaker. so this mindless box checking

approach is not limited just to the beltway's federal mandarins. so enters president trump, our new president. last year i wrote then-president-elect trump asking him to create a regulatory relief task force tie dress the overly burdensome regulations from our federal agencies that in my view has hurt over the past decade our economic growth, our job growth, our productivity and hence our wage growth. in february of 2017, president trump ordered federal agencies to create a regulatory reform task force tie dent fi rules within their agency that needed he imnation or modification.

i rise today to recognize improvements. these regulations are not just stly they're unnecessarily invasive in people's lives. we have seen the effect on schools, colleges, universities and state government. president trump set the proper tone for reining in the regulatory state by issuing an executive order in the first 10 days of taking office directing agent -- agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for each new one issued. common sense. in 017, federal agencies have ithdrawn or delayed 1,5079

planned -- 1,579 planned regulatory actions leading to over $8 billion in lifetime net cost savers. in 2018, the trump administration plans to raise the bar by issuing 448 regulatory actions and 121 regulatory action a three to one tio, resulting in $9 billion lifetime savings for the economy. this cart sho -- this chart shows the annual cost for new regulations every year, beginning in 2009. you can see the wet blanket that i described growing between 2009 and 2012. you can see out at the last column, 2017, that it's a the cline, $570 million reduction in the cost of new regulations proposed by washington.

during 2017 here in congress, we passed 13 congressional review acts. 11 of which president trump signed into law this year. by repealing these 11 damaging, large rules, the economy will save some $10 billion over the next 20 years. these savings and cuts put the control back in the hands of the american people and ensure that more accountability and much-needed transparency to the rule making process is assured while providing that local businesses, local farmers, and communities have relief. also, we're working with the administration to right-size regulatory cost through the use of cost benefit analysis. and asserting our article 1 oversight authority. thus, congress is working through our committee process also to lower and remove the costs and burden of that wet

blanket of an overburdened regulatory state. naturally this cost-benefit work must be done responsibly, by balancing labor and capital, clean air and water, energy security a clean energy future, safe banks, protected consumers. all that is the responsibility of our elect members in the house and senate and their oversight of the executive. i commend president trump for cutting the red tape in washington, giving control back to our states, local communities, and hardworking taxpayers. mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss my recent resolution here in the house, h.res. 673, which expresses concern over a tax on the coptic christians in egypt. and the opportunity -- i had the opportunity to travel to eyipt last year. in the course of preparing for

that trip, enduring the trip -- and during the trip, as well as after i returned back to the united states, i repeatedly heard about the plight of coptic christians in egypt. now isis named the continues their number one -- the copts their number one target. and we all know the brutal atrocities against them. in libya, back in 2015, isis beheaded 21 coptic christians. sending shock waves from a foe the around the world. scores were killed in the bombings of st. peter and st. paul church in cairo in december, 2016. most recently, on december 29, 11 were shot and killed outside t. menas church in hillwa. these are a few atrocitied

carried out against copts by terrorist groups like isis. i had the opportunity to walk the halls of st. peter and st. palka need ral. i thought about the gospel where mary fled to egypt to save him from king herod. the copts are egyptians. the word coptic in greek means egyptian. but there in st. peter and st. paul's beautiful cathedral in cairo, murdered by a coward, as women and children prayed, blood splattered on the walls marked the horror and chaos of that place of worship an serenity. although coptic christians have been repeatedly victims of numerous attacks from terrorist groups and extremists, it's been disturbing to me to learn of the attacks carried out against couldn'ts in christian churches

that are car -- against copts in christian churches carried out by their fellow egyptians. on december 22, 2017, just after friday prayers, dozens of egyptian muslims assaulted a coptic christian church south of cairo in an act that started out as a demonstration. while unsanctioned by the egyptian government this church had been holding services for some 15 years. according to report the individuals called for the church's demolition, destroyed its contents and assaulted those worshiping outside. based on similar attacks, it's unlikely, mr. speaker, that the egyptian government will hold those perpetrators accountable for this egregious action. and this is just the most recent example of the ongoing trend of assaults on copts, their church,, and their property.

-- their churches and their property. i believe many of us in congress were pleased to see the egyptian president el-sisi join the coptic pope in celebrating the rthodox christian mass, in egypt's new administrative capital east of cairo. president el-sisi's words of tolerance are appreciated by these who respect peace for all those who live in egypt and all who fare religious freedom across the globe. however, while president el-sisi spoke words of tolerance there are in my view greater actions that both he and the egyptian government can take to protect the rights of egyptian christians. seeking merely to raise their families, pursue their work, respect their leaders, and love their ancient nation. for this reason, i introduced h. -- house resolution h. 673, to

urge continued progress in the religious tolerance in this very important country. there are many construct i steps that will enhance power prorkvide better security for christians and improve the education and opportunities for all egyptians. my colleagues and i offer this resolution because of our long friendship and partnership with egypt. we're partner this is regional peace efforts, regional economic growth, and in our mutual desire to defeat militant terrorist nations and those who financed them. president el-sisi has set the right tone at the top level of his government and i believe he partnership ul with the continues and other christians that respect and resulting legal protection must be passed down to all levels of

government and society because the streets sadly tell a different story. the egyptian people are a proud people with an extraordinary civilization and i believe this is a great opportunity for egypt to emphasize the importance that continues can play in egyptian society as full egyptian citizens. as the coptic pope told men my visit to cairo, all egyptians, muslim and christian, take their water from the nile. egypt is an essential partner in the efforts toward a lasting peace between israel and her neighbors and in the fight against terrorism and violent exdreamism. president el-sisi told me directly on two occasions how important counterterrorism is to the egyptian government. it's their number one concern

without any doubt. and i commend the president for his partnership with the united states and especially with israel in that field of counterterrorism. with isis carrying out two terrorist attacks last year the jipt within a month of each other in november and december that killed muslims and christians, the egyptian government's concerns about terrorism are legitimate and real. however, in my view, i do not believe egypt's march toward modernization and progress and focusing on counterterrorism should come at the cost of sacrificing advances in human rights, education, and religious freedom. i urge swift consideration of my resolution by the house foreign affairs committee and on the floor of the house so that we can continue to advance religious freedom and civil society with our partner, egypt.

thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. opposed. the motion is adopted. accordingly. the house stands adjourned until

10:00 a.m. tomorrow. i

yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stewart: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of s. 139. on january 19, the fisa amendments acts of 2008 will expire. this vital legislation includes section 702 which permits the government to target foreign citizens located overseas to obtain foreign intelligence information. section 702 is one of the most if not the most critical national security tool used by our intelligence community to obtain intelligence on foreign terrorists located overseas. now, some claim 702 vacuums bulk information without due regard to the intended target. this assertion is simply false. 702 is a targeted program with roughly 106,000 foreign targets worldwide. given the worldwide population is about 7.5 billion, this program can hardly be described as bulk collection. section 702 targets